> But I asked whether copyright enforcement was necessary for films to get adequately funded.

I addressed that by referencing a study that concludes piracy has no measurable impact on revenue.

>> But I asked whether copyright enforcement was necessary for films to get adequately funded.

> I addressed that by referencing a study that concludes piracy has no measurable impact on revenue.

I'm weary of studies in general because they're capable of justifying absolute bullshit. Anyway, your study was conducted in a regime where getting films for free is illegal and therefore somewhat less convenient than it could be if it were legal. We don't have access to a world in which that isn't the case, so your study is kind of... not able to answer my question?

People who appeal to studies should look up "how to prove a counterfactual".

> I'm weary of studies in general because they're capable of justifying absolute bullshit.

Do you have a proposal for an alternative process?

> Anyway, your study was conducted in a regime where getting films for free is illegal and therefore somewhat less convenient than it could be if it were legal.

In Switzerland, the country I live in, piracy is legal. You might be interested in researching the consequences.

>We don't have access to a world in which that isn't the case, so your study is kind of... not able to answer my question?

Then your question is moot, as no one can answer it. Perhaps it is you who should actually look up unfalsifiable statements.

You're saying that for a statement to be falsifiable, a logically invalid falsification needs to be accepted. How can you argue that a counterfactual can be proven without actually setting up the counterfactual scenario? Or doing something else that makes logical sense?

[edit]

Also, to be clear, I think that if a study is being used to justify a counterfactual, a long-form argument needs to be made about why it does that. You can't just give the study results (which don't actually test the counterfactual scenario). The relevant counterfactual here is "If copyright law were to be abolished then it would not hurt producers of media like film".

This whole discussion reminds me of the 2000-2010 internet. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-o...

Finally, I've edited out some insults and comments which didn't make sense.

I don't know what to tell you, you said yourself that your question cannot be answered, so why even ask it?

There is no need for artificial scarcity, the arts could be funded like Patreon stuff, with instead the government giving the money to individuals to spend on creators they like: https://www.cepr.net/report/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-int...